Search for: "STATE EMPLOYEES v. Personnel Bd." Results 1 - 20 of 76
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Sep 2009, 4:10 am
Employee cannot be found guilty of misconduct not alleged in the disciplinary charges filed against the employeeMayo v Personnel Review Bd. of the Health & Hosps. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 7:00 am
Labor Code section 3208.3, subdivision (h), states that an employer is not required to compensate an employee for a psychiatric injury substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action. [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 12:44 pm
., Palmieri severely abused a coworker (N.) in the personnel office. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 3:05 am
PERB reverts to its earlier “past-practice” analysis in determining “unit work”Matter of Manhasset Union Free School Dist. v New York State Pub. [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 7:02 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The company argued that it used business judgment in making these hiring decisions, and that it had a policy of not rehiring employees into lesser titles that would amount to demotions for the candidate.The Court of Appeals (Walker, Park and Nardini) held as follows: first, it noted that the Second Circuit stated in Byrnie v. [read post]
16 May 2017, 5:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Tenured teacher unwilling to improve her pedagogical skills despite being provided with substantial assistance terminated from her positionBroad v New York City Bd. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Judicial deference to PERB’s expertise in providing a remedy after it sustains an improper employer practice charge is not absoluteTown of Islip v New York State Pub. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 4:21 am
PERB reverts to its earlier "past-practice" analysis in determining "unit work"Matter of Manhasset Union Free School Dist. v New York State Pub. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 5:41 am
No. 6 of Towns of Islip & Smithtown v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371, the Appellate Division rejected this defense as well, commenting that “Contrary to the defendants' contention, an action commenced pursuant to Civil Service Law §102(2) is an action ‘to vindicate a public interest’ to which the notice of claim requirement in Education Law §3813(1) does not apply. [read post]